Musleh and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by the applicant, Ms Musleh, and a review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the residency requirements for citizenship, specifically whether the Minister should exercise a discretion under subsection 22(9) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth) to waive or set aside the general residency requirements stipulated in subsection 22(1). The case was heard by Senior Member Chris Puplick AM of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Musleh had a close and continuing association with Australia, a key consideration when assessing whether to exercise the discretion under subsection 22(9). This involved evaluating various indicia outlined in the Citizenship Policy, which are intended to assist decision-makers in assessing such associations. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's stated intention to return to Australia to reside, particularly in light of her son's impending graduation, and the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their return plans.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the applicant's Australian citizen children and her long-term relationship with her Australian spouse. It drew upon previous decisions, such as *Tran* and *Kilpi*, which affirmed that marriage to an Australian citizen can constitute a significant association with Australia, even if the applicant has not previously resided in Australia. The Tribunal found no legislative or policy basis to distinguish between a partner who had lived in Australia and followed their Australian spouse overseas, and a partner whose relationship commenced overseas without prior residence in Australia. The Tribunal was impressed by the applicant's understanding of Australian citizenship and concluded that there were no compelling reasons to delay her application, given her satisfaction of many of the relevant indicia.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the reviewable decision and remitted the application to the Minister for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the applicant be considered as fulfilling the necessary requirements of subsection 22(9) and, by extension, paragraphs 21(2)(c) and 21(2)(g) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth).